"THE ATTITUDE OF THE PROLETARIAT TO THE QUESTION OF PEACE"

Lenin

The Position of the Proletariat
Toward Questions of Peace.
Proposal for Theses

[objective]
The present war is the result of the imperialist contradictions
(essence) produced by bourgeois property relations; its goal

[Here and below underlined by P. Brizon.]

The rearrangement of power relations among capitalist classes on the world market, in accordance with the military successes achieved in the war. Since the aim of the war is not the sublation of capitalist commodity production, which brought it forth, it is also incapable of eliminating the causes of future wars. It leaves the old problems unsolved, entangles them further, and creates new contradictions which, on the basis of unhindered imperialist development, alongside an intensified economic and militarist oppression, give rise to new conflicts and thereby the danger of further military entanglements. Therefore, when bourgeois governments and their agents claim that the war has as its purpose the creation of a permanent peace, they are either lying or ignoring the conditions necessary for the realization of such an aim. Just as annexations—that is, the oppression of foreign peoples—cannot be the means to ensure a peaceful development of humanity, so too is it impossible to bring about permanent peace through demands that are admittedly well-intentioned but stand in contradiction to the historical conditions of capitalism, such as the limitation of armaments, the introduction of compulsory arbitration courts, the democratization of foreign policy, and so forth. On the basis of a class society, these demands remain a utopia. The limitation of armaments, which itself is merely a means of establishing an armistice among imperialist states, is capable of neither eliminating nor mitigating the causes of war, not to mention the fact that in the age of imperialism there exists no universally binding standard according to which armaments could be limited. Compulsory arbitration courts presuppose the existence of a universally recognized law, which can be created neither through the brutal force of an imperialist war nor realized in a class society whose legal consciousness flows at each given moment from the material interests of its ruling class. The democratization of foreign policy presupposes, alongside political democracy, also social democracy within the internal life of states, the creation of which, for its part, is impossible so long as the capitalist form of property exists, and with it the exploitation of human beings by human beings.

The same presuppositions hold for the so-called right of nations to self-determination. So long as peoples in their internal economic, political and social relations are dominated by the rule of propertied classes, who dispose of all economic and state means of power through which they oppress and exploit their own fellow countrymen, the people cannot determine themselves.

Proceeding from these considerations, the proletariat must reject, just as sharply as it rejects the imperialist war, the utopian demands of bourgeois pacifists and embourgeoisified socialists, who are preparing to awaken new illusions in place of old ones and to place the proletariat in the service of these illusions, which ultimately serve only confusion, the incitement and kindling of chauvinism, militarist enthusiasm, and the policy of fighting to the bitter end in war.

II

If it is impossible to establish permanent peace on the basis of capitalist society, then its preconditions are created in the struggle for socialism. By abolishing capitalist private property, socialism simultaneously eliminates, along with the exploitation of the popular masses by propertied classes, and thereby with national oppression, also the causes of war. Therefore, the struggle for permanent peace can consist only in the struggle for the realization of socialism. Every proletarian action that represents a renunciation of class struggle and subordinates the aims of the proletariat to the aims of bourgeois classes and their governments, insofar as it solidarizes itself with the national class of exploiters, works against the creation of conditions for permanent peace. Such actions not only entrust capitalist classes and bourgeois governments with a task that they cannot fulfill; they moreover senselessly throw the best forces of the working class into the slaughter and thereby condemn to destruction and annihilation the most energetic and capable part of the working class, which is called upon in the first place to wage the struggle for socialism both during the war and in the subsequent time of peace.

The sole solution possible from the standpoint of proletarian interests regarding bourgeois aims for peace is therefore the call for an immediate armistice and the prompt initiation of peace negotiations, regardless of the current state of military and strategic position.

III

Only insofar as this call finds an echo in the ranks of the international proletariat and leads to energetic actions in the spirit of class struggle with the final goal of overthrowing capitalist class rule will the working class succeed in exercising influence over the character of future peace. Every other stance excludes the proletariat's influence on the character of peace and leaves the determination of its conditions to the arbitrary will of governments, diplomacy, and ruling classes.

While waging revolutionary mass struggle for the realization of the final aims of socialism, and thereby for the liberation of humanity from the scourge of militarism and war, the proletariat must simultaneously oppose all annexationist desires of warring states. The proletariat must wage the struggle against annexations not because it regards the political map of the world as it existed before the war as some immovable magnitude, not because it deems unnecessary and impossible the future formation of new state boundaries. Socialism itself strives toward the elimination of all national oppression through the economic and political unification of peoples on a democratic basis, which cannot be realized within the framework of capitalist state boundaries. But it is precisely annexations, in whatever form they appear, that hinder the achievement of this aim, because the violent dismemberment of nations, their arbitrary division and incorporation into foreign states, worsen the conditions of proletarian class struggle.

Just as incompatible with annexations is the demand for war indemnities when considered from the standpoint of proletarian interests. Just as ruling classes in each country seek to shift the costs of waging war onto the shoulders of the working class, so too must the burden of paying war indemnities ultimately be borne by the proletariat of the respective country. Such a shifting of the burden will also harm the working class of the victorious country, inasmuch as the worsening of the economic and social situation of the proletariat of one country exerts a reverse effect upon the proletariat of another country and thereby complicates the conditions of international class struggle.

Neither annexations nor war indemnities, but rather the common liberation from the burden of war through the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the ruling classes in each country—this is the slogan of socialist workers in their action for the immediate establishment of peace.

Precisely because the present war is deeply rooted in the aggregate of relations of the imperialist epoch (competition for world domination, financial capital, monopolies, the division of the world, etc.), benevolent phrases about permanent peace, about democratic peace and the like, about peace which supposedly could be possible under the present governments, with power remaining in the hands of the ruling bourgeois class—such phrases deceive the masses, conceal from them the genuine, actual bases of imperialist policy, instill false confidence in the bourgeoisie, and transform themselves into reformism.